Photios I of Constantinople

“"Whom he appointed the heir of all." Of what? Of all those who approach the undefiled divine nature. Indeed, the Son is the heir and partaker of the Father's nature, dominion and power. If the Son is the heir of the Father's attributes, it is necessary to explain, in what way. Through him, it says, he also created the ages [the world]. If the creation is a mutual deed of the Father and of the Son, then all that is in the world is also a shared property of the Father and the Son. If all in the spiritual universe belongs to both of them, then that is also true of what was created after the spiritual universe, that is, our world (cosmos) and everything in it. Yet in order that you would not dare to interpret "heir" as according to grace or favor rather than according to birth and nature, he adds, "who is the reflection of [God's] glory." The author had in mind to prevent you from a simpleminded yet ungodly conclusion after he stated that the Father appointed him an heir. I believe that "appointed" does not signify production or creation of the heir yet indicates relationship between the Son and the Father, who is the cause according to nature of their unity and convergence. [The writer does this] so that it would not appear as if the Son is deprived of the fatherly bond by his origin and hence the Father and the Son are two separate and unrelated entities.… He speaks in very clear terms, "the very stamp of his nature," that is he [the Son] shares the same nature and mode of existence, that is he is God, all-powerful, omnipotent, creator, and shares in all other attributes of the Father, except that the Father is always the Father and the Son is always the Son. Therefore, everything is created, sustained and directed by his almighty word. See, he is truly the heir, as the Father handed everything to him.”

“He lifted up the first offering of our nature to the Father, and the Father marveled at this offering. And because of the high esteem of the one who offered it and because of the purity of the offering, he, as the father of the household shows him with his hand the place close to himself and also places the offering nearby and says, "sit at my right hand."”

“Why does he bring up the quote, "what are human beings that you are mindful of them?" He purports to prove, from the contrary, the following statement, that Christ is far superior to the angels. "A little while lower than the angels," he brings … up in order to disprove the opposite proposition. He means that he was made lower through the suffering of death, "we saw him, but he had no form nor beauty." Therefore, it was appropriate to say that about the Lord, because he was exalted; again, it was appropriate to exhort them [angels] to "put everything in subjection under his feet."”

“Human beings had been afraid of death because they are held in slavery. The slavery of death means to be a subject of sin. "The sting of death is sin." Now, by his death Christ destroyed "the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil," the inventor and the leader of sin. Sin became a disease. However, as we have been released from the oppression of that slavery, so we have been also delivered from the fear of death. And that is evident from the following illustrations. Before we feared and tried to avoid death as the supreme and invincible evil, but now we perceive it as prelude transition into the superior life and accept it joyously from those who persecute us for the sake of Christ and his commandments.”

“"He is able to help those who are tempted" … should be interpreted as follows. As the sinless body of the Lord was subjected to the evil and the temptations of suffering befell it … therefore, having the sinless body, having been tried and having suffered, he has the just and blessed power over evil, can deliver humans who are dying under sin from the temptations that fall on them, and he can defend from the temptations. If the Lord had righteous and blessed power over the audacious evil that tempted his sinless body, he also is able to release those who are subject to sin and temptations and to be the helper of those who are tempted.”

“"One who has been worthy of much more glory." He discussed in what ways Moses is equal to Christ, now he talks about Christ's superiority. "Of much more." Who is that? Christ, who is the Word incarnate. "More glory than Moses, just as the builder of a house has more honor than the house itself." Now he talks about the highest superiority of God over human beings. He says Moses was a faithful ruler over the whole household, that is, over the whole people, yet Moses himself was one of them. Therefore, the humanity of Christ is worthy of so much more honor than the honor of Moses, as the creator is superior to the creation, "just as the builder of a house has more honor than the house itself." By "house" he means the people who were with Moses, yet Moses was one of them while Christ was the one who created the house.”

“He says, "Not having joined themselves to the things they heard," that is, the things they believed. How was it possible for them to be joined to those things? "By faith," he says, that is, through faith. For if the latter had believed as the former had, they would have been joined together into one, since their faith would have joined them together and blended them together.”

“Just as the first "rest" did not prevent there being a second rest, so neither does the existence of a second rest prevent the existence of a third and more perfect rest.… Then it is clear that there is a certain other rest beyond those rests which have been spoken of, and that this rest is hallowed not for any who happen to chance upon it, but rather "for the people of God." But truly the people of God are "those who believe" in him and who keep his commandments.”

“From both ways he establishes that "he will sympathize with our weaknesses": first, because he is great and mighty, being the Son of God and very God himself, and, second, because he also as very man suffered and endured the testing of afflictions and the weakness of the flesh. For both these reasons he is in every respect made a partaker of our weaknesses.”

“Two things are most in need of investigation here. First, how can he say, "He was heard," and yet he himself begged not to enter into death? He did not avoid death, for he was crucified and died. Second, on the basis of what sort of "godliness" was he heard? And third, to what should the phrase "although he was a Son" be adjoined? Does it belong to the clause "he was heard because of his godliness" or to the clause that follows, so that it would read, "although he was a Son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered"? For it is not a small difference between those two.”

“Now as regards the first matter we say that he did not make one petition but a twofold one. For the one petition asked to avoid death, the other petition asked for death. For he also says in the same prayer and petition, "However, not my will but yours be done." And John, showing this more clearly, says that the Son prayed by saying, "Father, glorify your Son, in order that your Son may glorify you," calling the cross and death glory, as is clear. So the excellent Paul says quite well, "He was heard."”

“The phrase "on the basis of his godliness" comes closer to being understood from the things that have already been spoken. For we said that there were two petitions, the petition to be delivered from the death, and the petition of consent, which was really of much "godliness," namely, the petition, "however, not my will, but yours, be done." Therefore, Christ was heard not on the basis of his prayer to avoid death but on the basis of his "godliness," that is, that petition of his came to pass, not the petition that sought to avoid death but the godly petition. Therefore, he says, "And having been made perfect," that is, he was acknowledged as perfect and good beyond description and loving of humankind through his sufferings and cross and death. And he also hinted at this above, when he said, "petitions and supplications," speaking rather enigmatically by doubling the petition. Then also when he said, "petitions and supplications," he did not append the words about avoiding death but rather "to the One who was able to save him from death." [He added this] well and very wisely, in order that whenever you think of him who was crucified and buried, you may not think that he endured this owing to the helplessness of his Father but because it was the common will (of the Father and the Son) that the Christ suffer these things for the salvation of the world. And this can be said also because of his resurrection. For the excellent Paul having uttered rather humble things in many places, says that the Father raised Christ. Therefore, having raised him, he rescued and delivered him from death. This is how these things are understood in my opinion.”

“Now as far as the phrase "although being a Son" is concerned, if someone should understand it as a transposition—and such a trope is uncustomary for the excellent apostle—the natural reading of the passage would be something like this: "Who in the days of his flesh, although being a Son, made petitions and supplications," etc. That is, although having the very great advantage of being a Son, which enabled him to do all things by his own autocratic opinion without any petition or request, even as the Father does, nonetheless, since he was in the days of the flesh, he offered petitions and supplications. And according to this understanding it can also be understood how the phrase was soon joined to "and being heard because of his godliness," inasmuch as he says that he was heard, although being a Son, and not asking to be heard, inasmuch as he made his will concurrent to his Father's will and it was fulfilled without any petition. But if you conjoin this clause with what follows, the understanding will also be guided in the right way in the manner that I will show. But first we ought to examine the meaning of the clause "he learned obedience from the things which he suffered." It really cannot be that he himself learned from the things he suffered to obey his Father and that by testing he acquired knowledge of how to obey him, can it? Or is it not rather that by testing he learned such was the greatness of the obedience, with which the Father hearkened to him, in that he was crucified and died and rose and exalted the human race to be at the right hand of the Father and to save our race? For these sort of things pertain to that obedience which took place when he said, "Father, glorify your Son." Christ, being the Son and God just as much as the Father, already knew this obedience and how great it was, even before he rendered obedience to the Father, but "having been heard" he learned it through the things he suffered and through the testing he underwent. Then, however one wishes to understand it—although to me the second way of understanding seems particularly well suited—the phrase "although being a Son" presents no difficulty.”

“Although you ought to be teachers, not only are you not teachers, but also you cannot even learn anything except the rather rudimentary and elementary and simple things, and even these things not absolutely but weaker than the beginning of the oracles of God. He does not say the "elements of the oracles," but the elements of "the beginning" of the oracles. Most likely the elements of the oracles of God would be the words about the incarnation, but the elements of the "beginning" of the oracles are the things about which he goes on to say, "not laying again a foundation," etc.The argument of the arrangement is this: "Therefore, leaving behind the word of the beginning of Christ, let us be carried to perfection, and we will do this, if God permits." "The Word of Christ." What sort of word? The word of teaching that it is necessary to lay down a foundation of repentance from dead works, the word of teaching that it is necessary to believe in God, the word of teaching that one must be baptized, the word of teaching that one must be deemed worthy of the Holy Spirit, the word of teaching that there will be a resurrection and that there will be a judgment. For the word and the teaching have a common origin in every respect.”

“When he says to leave behind the elementary matters concerning Christ and to leave behind the word which stops any progress at the beginning and to be carried "to perfection," he does not simply say perfection in its proper sense, but the perfection, as it were, that exists between the rudiments of the oracles of God and the heavenly perfection. For the "elements of the beginning of the oracles of God" consist of renouncing Satan and his works, believing in God, being baptized, receiving the Holy Spirit, knowing about the resurrection of the dead and believing that there is a judgment. These things are the elements of the beginning of the oracles of God. But the "elements of the oracles of God"—not merely the beginning of the oracles of God—is to know that Christ suffered on our behalf, that he removed our sins, that he wrought our salvation for us, that he has become our high priest, that he offered himself on our behalf, and such other things. And "perfection" in renouncing Satan and his cohorts consists of advancement in the virtues and endurance amid tribulations, persecutions and periods of testing. And heavenly "perfection" is the exact apprehension concerning the divine teaching of Christ, insofar as is humanly possible. So first we believe and are baptized, then we know what sort of things Christ underwent for our sake and what sort of things he did in his human nature, then we are perfected in the virtues, then we are deemed worthy of the knowledge which is in accordance with divine wisdom.”

“"And the powers of the age to come," which is to say, "having learned what things the coming age is capable of." For "having tasted" means "having learned" or "having been instructed," as it commonly means, being taken in a figurative manner. But what can the coming age do? And what are its needs and work? In that age each one finds the reward for the things one did; that neither the punishment nor the blessing in that age has an end; that then whatever deed was not unmindful of the judge but was righteous will appear, etc. He says that for those who have learned these things with others and then have fallen away, it is impossible to bring to repentance.”

“What does it mean, "crucifying for themselves anew the Son of God and holding him up to contempt"? He says that they crucify him again for themselves and dishonor him. This is what he means here: Christ was crucified once and for all, and we have been crucified together with him through baptism. Then he says that such a one, imagining that there is a second baptism, like their [first] baptism into him, crucifies the Lord again. For what else does the one do who intends to be crucified a second time with him than to deem that Christ has been crucified a second time through the things he does? But he says that to crucify Christ a second time (insofar as it applies to him) is nothing other than to ridicule and dishonor him. For having died once and for all he is immortal thereafter, but the one who crucifies him anew posits this lie, inasmuch as he reproaches him as a liar when he says that he died once and for all.”

“"It is cultivated" manifestly for their salvation and the enjoyment of those producing fruit. And if "the Father is the vinedresser," just as the Lord says, and again the Son is also the sower, "the one sowing the good seed," if the crop is suitable for them, that is, if the fruit appears—for we also ought to bear fruit for God, as he says somewhere, "but now having become slaves to God, produce your fruit for sanctification"—then if this is the case, we farm manifestly because of God, in order that we may please him with a virtuous life. Therefore we also will be deemed worthy of his blessing.”

“He calls Melchizedek "without genealogy" because he was not from the seed of Abraham nor was he given a genealogy by Moses, but his race was Canaanite and he sprang from that cursed seed. He was pronounced righteous in regards to his deeds. Yet because he had not sprung from righteous forebears or from some righteous seed, it was not proper to give the genealogy of this man who inclined to the epitome of righteousness. Now Melchizedek demonstrates that he was of Canaanite origin and it also can be proved positively from those regions that he ruled and reigned over and the regions with which he was associated. For he was a neighbor of Sodom, and he was very close to Abraham when he lived near "the oak of Mamre." And one must also reckon that he happens to be king of that "Salem," which is Jerusalem.”

“He says, "even though they have come out of the loins of Abraham." Although the Levites are in all other respects equal in rank with the other tribes, nonetheless because the other tribes give tithes while the Levites receive them, the Levites are clearly superior. But if this is the case, then clearly also the same principle applies to Abraham and Melchizedek, the giver and recipient, respectively. Consequently, the type of Christ [Melchizedek] is greater than the patriarch Abraham. But if he is greater than Abraham, he is much greater than the priests. And if the type is greater than Abraham, what would anyone say concerning Christ himself?”

“He says, that because Abraham paid tithes, also Levi "who receives tithes himself was made to tithe," that is, he gave a tithe. We must underscore the phrase "through Abraham," so that the meaning does not suffer violence. For because Abraham was made to tithe, in a certain sense also Levi, being still "in his loins" has been made to tithe.”

“I think that the phrase "also the first one had regulations for worship" refers to the old covenant and not the tabernacle. For he did not compare the tabernacle with the new covenant but the whole old covenant with the new one, and he showed the superiority of the latter over the whole former covenant. "For behold," he says, "the days are coming and I will effect a new covenant on the house of Israel and on the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I established for their fathers," and again, "When he says 'new' he has already made the first old." And he adds these things and says, "Now the first one had." … Therefore it is clear that the discussion is still concerning the covenant. For since he struck it down in comparison with the new covenant, in order that no one may say then that it was rejected as worthless, he anticipates the argument and says that even that covenant had "regulations for worship," laws and order and fitting conformity with the service of God. And having spoken broadly of the whole law, that "it had regulations of worship," he also proceeds part by part, beginning with the tent. It had, he says, "the earthly sanctuary." Then after the earthly sanctuary (which was accessible to all), he had again another tabernacle placed in front of the yet more mystical and holier tabernacle. And in the more outward tabernacle there was "the lampstand and the showbread," which tabernacle is not called "the earthly sanctuary," as is the tabernacle in front of all the other tabernacles, but it is simply called "the Holy Place."”

“The statement that "he entered into the heaven itself" must be taken by common agreement as this: "And so that he might not offer himself often, he entered into the very heaven." For it is characteristic of those entering the "antitypes of the true things" to bear sacrifices "often" and "with blood," but not of the one entering "into heaven itself."”

“Christ spoke, "while coming into the world," not "after he had entered it." But manifestly he was already entering it when he promised David and maintained that he would seat one from the fruit of his loins on his throne until the age would come. Therefore, "while entering into the world" because of the promises made to David, he also says this through him, since "you did not wish for sacrifice and offering, neither were you well pleased" with the rites in the law. And he did not say, "you are not well pleased nor wish," but "you did not want nor were you well pleased," all but saying, "From their very institution and introduction the sacrifices were not entirely satisfactory and well pleasing. But really if any of them were accepted by you, it was accepted owing to the weakness of the one who brought them. Since then I reject these things and 'I prepare a body for myself,' then 'I have come' in order 'to do your will.' For this also is spoken concerning me not in a simple manner and in passing, but as the chief matter and the supposition of the book which foretold about me." And he calls the book the whole Old Testament. For the chief thing and the most noteworthy supposition of the Old Testament are the predictions about Christ.”

“"Although he died, through it he still speaks," that is, because his very sacrifice furnished his brother with an opportunity for malice and jealousy, and his brother produced murder. Even if "he died," "through it he speaks." For this very reason Abel was always to be remembered and never forgotten. If someone should investigate both matters more accurately, the phrase "through it" (as is commonly understood) applies equally to "dying" and to "he speaks."He still speaks. He is always to be remembered. He says that Abel's deed done in faith does not allow him to fall into obscurity.”

“One can understand the statement "hence, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back" in the following sense: "Abraham received Isaac in a figurative way." For, as he says, since he showed some untold obedience and a faith that conquers even the laws of nature itself, he received his son again, not merely because he offered his son but because he offered him with great assent and his worthy faith. For Abraham received Isaac, who bore a figure and likeness to the Son of God and God himself. For such faith can set matters aright. But if you understand "in a figurative way" to apply to Abraham and Isaac, in that Abraham acted as a type of the Father and as a figure and likeness of him, while Isaac acted as a type of the Son, this interpretation would accord well with the understanding we have already stated. Abraham's faith brought him such a gain, he says, because after offering him he received him back with great addition. What sort of addition? That he would receive him again "in a figurative manner" and likeness of the action with the Father and the Son, that is, he received his son with so great profit, since both became a type of the offering with which the Father thought it good to be completed in his Son.Or one can understand it as follows. God "in a figurative way received" Isaac, that is, because of the faith and zeal of Abraham. To be sure, later a ram was offered, and even then it was not brought out of Abraham's flock but was also provided by God. Nonetheless, God received the sacrifice in this way, as if Abraham had offered Isaac himself albeit in a symbolic manner and through the substitution of the ram. Therefore he says, "He received him," namely, Isaac, "in a figurative way" and substitution of the ram, that is, the intended and fulfilled purpose of Abraham and the desire of his faith. Thus God received the sacrifice of Abraham in this manner.”

“Thereupon he not only spoke but he also was bold to demonstrate it to coming generations by his action. For since another king would arise from Ephraim, for this very reason he says, "and Jacob bowing in worship over the head of his staff," that is, being an old man, he bowed down to Joseph, showing the obeisance of the whole people that would take place for him. And this has already come to pass, when the brothers bowed down to him, and it was about to come to pass later through the ten tribes.”

“What is the "abuse suffered for the Christ"? It is bearing the reproach of such things, while revealing the reproach that Christ endured. Or it can mean that Moses endured reproach because of Christ—for "the rock was Christ"—since it was likely that Moses was vilified when he heard, "You don't wish to kill me in the same way that you killed the Egyptian yesterday, do you?" That is the "abuse suffered for the Christ," namely, to suffer ill until one's end and last draught of breath, just as Christ himself was reviled and heard, "If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross." For both were reviled by their very own countrymen for whom they were doing good works.”

“"The one who warned them on earth" can be understood to mean the one promising them earthly things that will pass away: the land flowing with milk and honey, the conquest of enemies, goodly offspring and long life. But from heaven speaks the one who promises heaven itself as an inheritance, who graciously bestows the enjoyment of that unspeakable and eternal glory. Or "warned them on earth" can be said to mean that bodily purifications pervaded nearly everything of the law given through Moses. But the giving of the law that took place through Christ is a cleansing and illumination of the soul for us. Then "on earth" are the things proclaimed, because they are lowly and applied to the body made of dirt; and the things of the New Testament are "from heaven" because they are divine and exalted and cleanse the soul in a truly divine manner and bear it up into heaven.”

“This is spoken to those who would still be at a loss, asking, "How do you say, 'you have an altar'? For what was offered on it?" It is Christ himself whom you neglect above and below and fail to see that he was sacrificed, since his sacrifice and offering took place for the world, although he himself has not been sacrificed on your altar. For it is manifest that "he suffered outside" the city of Jerusalem. Therefore he says to them, "Yes, he suffered outside, but through this very fact it has rather been accomplished that 'we have an altar.' For even among you 'the bodies' of the sacrificial victims 'are burned' not on the altars themselves, but 'outside the camp.' And still for this reason 'he suffered outside the gate,' so that he might sanctify all and not merely the priests. And if the sacrifice took place for all, how could it not have been an altar?" But the statement "in order to sanctify the people" gives a different interpretation. He says, "I said that 'those serving the temple do not have authority to eat' from our altar, not because this is impossible for them, but because in their opinion they reject themselves as unworthy, since—due to the mercy of Christ—not only is it not forbidden, but for this very reason he once suffered." He says, " 'He suffered outside the gate to sanctify the people,' not this people or that one but all the people and to grant them to have the authority to eat also from this altar."”